Month: November 2012

AIRC Update: Motion to dismiss GOP complaint in federal court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Howard Fischer reports on Wednesday's hearing before a three judge panel of federal judges. GOP attorney to judicial panel: Redistricting maps are illegal:

David Cantelme told the three-judge panel the
Independent Redistricting Commission broke the law when it created
districts with varying populations despite state and federal laws
generally requiring all voting districts to have approximately the same
number of people. The commission's maps have a difference of more than 8
percent between the most and least-populated districts.

This is a losing argument. Apparently neither Howard Fischer nor David Cantelme are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on September 25, 2012 in a West Virginia Redistricting case — by an apparent unanimous vote — that lower-court judges not insist
on close-to-zero differences in the population of each of a state’s
districts for choosing members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Lyle Denniston wrote at SCOTUSblog.com, Opinion recap: Hedging on “one person, one vote”:

“Zero variance” in population is not the new constitutional norm for
redistricting, the Court made clear.  Just because computers can
produce almost exactly equal-sized districts, the Constitution does not
require it, the decision said.

After sitting on the case from West Virginia all summer long, the
Court produced an eight-page, unsigned ruling that largely deferred to
the wishes of that state’s legislature on how to craft the three
districts for choosing its House delegation.  The opinion can be found here. The new ruling came in the case of Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission (docket 11-1184).

* * *

Tuesday’s ruling gave state legislators constitutional permission to
have some variation in size between congressional districts, if the
lawmakers do so to protect incumbents from having to run against each
other, to avoid splitting up counties, and to avoid moving many people
into a new district from the one where they had previously cast their
votes. In what appeared to be a novel new declaration, the Court
stressed that lower courts should not demand that a state prove
specifically how each of those goals would be satisfied by moving away
from equally populated districts. And, in another legal innovation,
the Court said that a variation that is not really very big does not
become a constitutionally suspect one just because a sophisticated
computer program could be used to avoid nearly all such variations.

If the difference between a state’s largest House district and its
smallest one is small — such as the 0.79% deviation in the West Virginia
plan — that does not become unconstitutionally large just because it
could be avoided by “technological advances in redistricting and mapping
software.”

* * *

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said once again that state legislatures
can have some inequality in the population of districts, if that is
done, within reason, to serve the other goals that redistricting can be
arranged to meet. The Court said explicitly that the Constitution does
not guarantee absolute equality in population of districts, even if
that could be achieved by high-tech computers.  It also cautioned judges
around the country not to go too far to second-guess how legislatures
work out the various and competing interests that they confront in
redistricting.

What else have you got, Howard?

California Judge: ‘dark money’ 501(c)(4) non-profit must disclose its donors to the Fair Political Practices Commission

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona needs to enact provisions of California's fair political practices law. Yesterday, a California judge ruled that a 'dark money' 501(c)(4) non-profit based in Arizona, Americans for Responsible Leadership, must disclose its donors to California's Fair Political Practices Commission. Judge: Ariz. group behind $11-million donation must turn over records:

A state judge on Wednesday ordered an Arizona nonprofit to hand over a wide range of records involving its $11-million donation to California political campaigns, a victory for the state's campaign finance watchdog.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is trying to unmask the donors behind the Arizona group, and the case is being watched as a test of California regulations intended to prevent campaign contributors from anonymously routing money through nonprofits.

"This is a moment of truth for our campaign disclosure laws," said Derek Cressman of Common Cause, an activist group that filed a complaint against the Arizona nonprofit.

The legal wrangling is not over, however, and it's unclear if the names of donors could become public before the election next week. State authorities want the records, including email and financial statements, by Thursday afternoon, but the Arizona nonprofit is expected to appeal the order.

Plus, if authorities get the records they want, they will still need to conduct an audit to determine whether the group is improperly shielding donors' identities.

The Arizona nonprofit, Americans for Responsible Leadership, gave the $11 million to the conservative Small Business Action Committee. The committee is fighting Gov. Jerry Brown's tax hike plan, Proposition 30, and supporting a separate measure to curb unions' political influence, Proposition 32.

The donation has become one of the most controversial issues in this year's campaigns, placing California in the midst of a nationwide debate over disclosing political donors using secretive nonprofits.

Federal law allows nonprofits to keep the identities of their donors confidential. But California regulations say donors must be identified if they gave to nonprofits with the intention of spending money on state campaigns here.

If the Arizona group has violated disclosure rules, "the court finds that irreparable harm has occurred and continues to occur as each day passes and voters continue to cast their votes without information that may influence their votes," wrote Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang in her Wednesday order.

The case is Fair Political Practices Commission v, Americans for Responsible Leadership, 34-2012-00131550, California Superior Court, Sacramento County (Sacramento).

Case documents are online at https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/publicdms/search.aspx

Minute Entry Order below the fold.

UPDATE Friday Nov. 2: As expected, an appeal was filed and an order of stay granted. Run out the clock, ustice denied. Appeals court: Arizona political group can keep shielding financial documents – East Valley Tribune:

An Arizona group can continue to withhold documents related to an $11 million contribution to a California political action committee while it appeals a lower court ruling, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled Friday.

* * *

The Fair Political Practices Commission is expected to appeal Friday's ruling to the state Supreme Court.

"We are exploring all of our options to make sure the ARL complies with the trial court's order requiring them to comply with the FPPC's audit," said Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.